New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

We have snow.

The world drove cars for decades in the snow before AWD. AWD isn't necessary. It can be better, but not necessary. Anyways, nothing amount AWD requires SUV or truck dimensions--to reference the original topic. An AWD EV is fine.



https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...snow/index.htm

Is it not saying something that Norway has the most EV's per capita in the world with 83% of new sales in May going to electric? I mean Norway does get a lot of snow. Just saying.



https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/02...ll-bestseller/



It is an inevitability. Oil is finite fuel source. Supplies are not projected to last long. At best, oil demand will exceed supply within a century. Dumping millions and millions of tons of CO2 in the air is equally as silly. What is your solution to these issues? If not electric then what other sustainable/renewable?

The world drove decades catless, withou abs, seatbelt, airbag, crash testing, eletronic controls on powertrain to reduce emissions and so on. So, your point makes no sense.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I guess it boils down to "so what?". I really don't see or understand your point here. As I said, people buy what people buy for the reasons they buy them, and none of that really matters in the end.

Every vehicle has "features" people don't use to their fullest. Heck, I don't think my passenger side window has ever been in anything but the up position (with the exception of when the door is opened and closed). I also don't "need" electric windows for that matter but there they are.

Where is your "break even" point on when someone should buy a function because they occasionally need it?

I do agree that trucks may be the "killer app" for EVs, bringing more into the fold. But, that is because it's the vehicle people want.

As far as the "most people could live with an EV", well most people buy vehicles for the 20% need not the 80%. If you can only afford one, or even two, cars you are going to buy the car you can take summer vacation in, not the one that you need to drive to work every day. Bottom line is people that own cars don't rent cars for special purposes unless forced to do so (flying to a new town on vacation/business/etc).

I’ve already stated the point several times. I know because I have said “the point” or even said, “The big point,” while underlining it, but I’ll say it again, which is that the argument that the vast majority of people couldn’t live with an EV because they need the utility of a truck has been demonstrated to be a myth. EV trucks can tow and haul. The vast majority of people who buy trucks will not require the longer towing range of an ICE truck. If they do then they will likely be able to rent one.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

LOL. Green future eh ? Let's just move the point of pollution from the tailpipe to the power station, the strip mining operations in africa and china, the dangerous waste byproducts of refining the materials mined for batteries and solar panels in africa and china, and to every junkyard that will end up storing these toxic batteries each becoming a superfund site when all these wonder cars become wrecked, broken or obsolete.

Just to recap : nobody actually uses their trucks, elon musk is our savior and CO2 is going to kill the planet but strip mining of toxic materials is "green".

Top notch.

Watch the battery day. Get updated.

Read the Expert Prognosis thread in the Off Topic forum. Look up battery recycling. Eventually we will be mining batteries for products. We already are starting. That, and we are using car batteries for grid storage. Moreover, materials are changing as battery technology improves and changes.

Regardless, our current path is not sustainable, so it will require changing and soon.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Yes, but Norway's conversion isn't out of consumer demand, it is a government program that has basically made it impractical to do anything but buy a new EV if you want a new car.

Consumer demand and consumer needs are two separate things. Regardless, I just demonstrated that the demand is for luxury trucks. People don’t use the utility of a truck much. Expect EV trucks to be great.

This is true. They are incentivizing people to get EVs. It seems to be working out fine.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Wally86

Good lord, I've never looked into norway's taxes but they're number 2 in the world for the highest???

https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Tax/Tax-rates

Half of my taxes are going to our military. I wonder what Norwegians get from their taxes.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

The world drove decades catless, withou abs, seatbelt, airbag, crash testing, eletronic controls on powertrain to reduce emissions and so on. So, your point makes no sense.

My point was demonstrated by the article. AWD doesn’t improve braking performance or handling. It improves forward acceleration. That has nothing to do with safety. Getting stuck in the snow might not be such a big problem that it requires everyone to have AWD or 4WD, let alone a truck with those features. Regardless, EVs can have AWD and 4WD, so we are still good

[phm14]

There's a big problem with the climate panic mongering. It's called "Ice Core Data". Our polar ice caps have maintained a indisputable record of our atmospheric conditions, for 100s of thousands of years. CO2, temps, all of it. What it shows is normal, fluctuating patterns of ebb and flow, in temps, CO2, etc., since before humans existed. Placed in graph form, the pattern closely resembles a heartbeat on an EKG-rising, then failing, over and over. What the pseudo scientists and leftist power mongers do is take a small time sample, where the graph is temporarily rising, and falsely claim the sky is falling. It's getting harder to find credible ice core data reports, with all the neo-marxist censorship, but they exist, and they are irrefutable. I studied scientific method and design for my degree, and the amount of garbage "studies" claiming credibility out there is impressive, but volume does not equal truth. The climate change lies are political, and with all things political, hot air is cheap, and action/results are all that matter. With the Left, everything is rooted in increasing the power, wealth, and control of a few at the top. Their goal is to convert US citizens into a commodity, as there progress in other countries offers examples of what the US will become if folks don't stop swallowing bad pills. If the goal were pollution reduction, we'd be looking at something with more upside potential, like hydrogen, instead of swapping one energy source for another with different but substantially similar negative environments effects (petroleum vs. battery). Can you imagine the government tax losses if hydrogen fueled vehicles ran on H2O? NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Half of my taxes are going to our military. I wonder what Norwegians get from their taxes.

Hyperbole is but not necessary to get a solid point across?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Wally86

Hyperbole is but not necessary to get a solid point across?

Social Security is basically an investment fund for my future. Also, it caps out above $142k, so as a percentage of our income, it is lower. Regardless, out military budget is greater than 50% of discretionary spending.

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Social Security is basically an investment fund for my future. Also, it caps out above $142k, so as a percentage of our income, it is lower. Regardless, out military budget is greater than 50% of discretionary spending.

Interesting.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/why-...etirement.html


"-Discretionary Spending
Discretionary Spending is the portion of the budget that the president requests and Congress appropriates every year. It represents less than one-third of the total federal budget, while mandatory spending accounts for around two-thirds."



Emphasis and underline added. You sound like you want to make the number more alarming than reality for the sake of hyperbole, again.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by phm14

There's a big problem with the climate panic mongering. It's called "Ice Core Data". Our polar ice caps have maintained a indisputable record of our atmospheric conditions, for 100s of thousands of years. CO2, temps, all of it. What it shows is normal, fluctuating patterns of ebb and flow, in temps, CO2, etc., since before humans existed. Placed in graph form, the pattern closely resembles a heartbeat on an EKG-rising, then failing, over and over. What the pseudo scientists and leftist power mongers do is take a small time sample, where the graph is temporarily rising, and falsely claim the sky is falling. It's getting harder to find credible ice core data reports, with all the neo-marxist censorship, but they exist, and they are irrefutable. I studied scientific method and design for my degree, and the amount of garbage "studies" claiming credibility out there is impressive, but volume does not equal truth. The climate change lies are political, and with all things political, hot air is cheap, and action/results are all that matter. With the Left, everything is rooted in increasing the power, wealth, and control of a few at the top. Their goal is to convert US citizens into a commodity, as there progress in other countries offers examples of what the US will become if folks don't stop swallowing bad pills. If the goal were pollution reduction, we'd be looking at something with more upside potential, like hydrogen, instead of swapping one energy source for another with different but substantially similar negative environments effects (petroleum vs. battery). Can you imagine the government tax losses if hydrogen fueled vehicles ran on H2O? NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.

Get your tin foil hat on. This is from NASA.




Hydrogen is produced from carbon sources like natural gas, and it is far less efficient than EVs, so we just aren’t there yet. Once we have an abundance of green energy then hydrogen will make sense. Not yet.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Wally86

Interesting.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/why-...etirement.html


"-Discretionary Spending
Discretionary Spending is the portion of the budget that the president requests and Congress appropriates every year. It represents less than one-third of the total federal budget, while mandatory spending accounts for around two-thirds."



Emphasis and underline added. You sound like you want to make the number more alarming than reality for the sake of hyperbole, again.

You think spending more than the next ten other countries on military and accounting for almost a trillion dollars a year isn’t excessive? Have you considered what we could do with that money? Could we save social security, since you brought it up.

The point is that many countries get more for their tax dollar like getting tuition paid for, healthcare paid for, childcare paid for, etc. so if someone is only looking at the taxes other countries pay without looking at the whole picture then it looks bad, but we have it worse. We pay far more for healthcare with worse outcomes, and that goes the same with many topics. Norway is investing in green infrastructure. We are building our military.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...ending-3306308

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

My point was demonstrated by the article. AWD doesn’t improve braking performance or handling. It improves forward acceleration. That has nothing to do with safety. Getting stuck in the snow might not be such a big problem that it requires everyone to have AWD or 4WD, let alone a truck with those features. Regardless, EVs can have AWD and 4WD, so we are still good

The article is correct when talking about the braking distance, it is mostly dependent on the tire to road friction coefficient. But the handling characteristics are incorrect, you can have controls that can improve specific situations (drive a Volvo in sketch situations). The article kind of admits that in the middle, but then push back.

AWD + Winter tires is the best, but it does not mean that AWD/4WD are similar to FWD in winter conditions.

If you have a chance, go ro any testing track in Sweeden, Winconsin or MI UP area during winter, you will have lots of fun.
Drive a 2wd PU, then compare to a 4wd PU. You can do some manouvers (slalom, figure 8, lane changes, 90 curve, crowned areas, and so on).

A V-box unit may help you to collect the data and see for yourself.

Edit: Just realized that you used a testing done on a BIW FWD based vehicle to talk about a necessity on driving dynamics for a BOF RWD based vehicle.

[Arthur-A]

FWD sucks. Quintessence of dullness.